BOARD'S DECISION ON FIREHOUSE
The following is a story that appeared in today's Washington Times
Newspaper. It sums up yesterday's events. -- KS

-----
HISTORIC FIREHOUSE SPARKS SAFETY CONCERNS
Matthew Cella
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published 2/8/2002

Historic preservationists marvel at the circa-1900 Italian
Renaissance-style firehouse in Northwest's Tenleytown, with its hose
tower and bay doors designed to accommodate horse-drawn firefighting
wagons.
 
But community members, who overwhelmingly voted in an Internet survey
two years ago to raze the station in favor of a state-of-the-art
facility, are angry about a city decision to designate the station a
historic landmark.

They say the designation could delay renovation and risk the safety of
their community.
 
After an hour and a half of testimony from preservationists, architects,
community leaders and the D.C. fire chief, the city's Historic
Preservation Review Board voted 7-0 yesterday to designate Engine
Company 20 on Wisconsin Avenue in Northwest a historic landmark in the
D.C. Inventory of Historic Sites.
 
One of the existing station's drawbacks, community members say, is it
can be entered only from the front - meaning engines have to back in
from Wisconsin Avenue with no stoplight for cover. The building also
lacks proper ventilation for the diesel exhaust of the departing
vehicles, and the living quarters are an afterthought with inadequate
plumbing and heating. The station is considered undersized for the lot
on which it sits and for the needs of the community.
 
The doors are the biggest problem.  Fire engines have 1-inch clearance
on either side entering the two bay doors unless the drivers pull in the
rearview mirrors. "I work in it on a daily basis, and the building is an
unsafe building," firefighter Dennis McVey told the board. Mr. McVey
has been driving firetrucks out of Engine Company 20's undersized bay
doors for more than 22 years. He said the firetruck the station uses,
Engine 20, is the oldest and smallest engine in the city's fleet. The
city's newer engines don't fit through the doors.
 
D.C. Fire Chief Ronnie Few said the narrow bay doors are "slowing down
the response times in our neighborhoods." He testified that he was in
favor of preserving a historic building - but not at the expense of
public safety. "What part of the history are we taking away from that
neighborhood?" he asked the board.
 
But what truly angered residents was they thought they had resolved the
issue among themselves more than a year ago.

Under Chief Thomas Tippett, the fire department proposed demolishing the
building and creating a $3.5 million facility with enhanced living
quarters, a training room and a third bay. The bays would allow rescue
vehicles to enter from 40th Street on the back side of the station and
exit onto Wisconsin Avenue.

But the Tenleytown Historical Society opposed razing the station and
filed an application for historic status in June 2000.

An agreement was reached among neighborhood leaders, the historical
society and the fire chief to adopt an alternate design - a $3.75
million to $4 million renovation that would enlarge the station and the
bay doors while maintaining much of the facade. The historical society
was satisfied and withdrew its application.
 
In December, the community was shocked to hear the Capitol Fire Museum,
a nonprofit organization, filed to have 19 stations that were built
before 1945 - including Engine Company 20 - designated historic.
 
Sally Berk, a local historian and preservationist, filed the application
on behalf of the museum as the result of a contract she signed with the
fire department in 1999 that called for her and a fire department
liaison to evaluate the stations for nomination as historic
buildings.

"Many other cities have landmark firehouses and they continue to do
state-of-the-art firefighting," Mrs. Berk said, adding that additions
and renovations to historic buildings are common.

But community leaders were shocked by the application, especially
because they felt the issue had been resolved. "We thought we had been
through this as a neighborhood," said Advisory Neighborhood Commission
member Jill Diskan, who expressed her outrage yesterday to the review
board.
 
The commission argued the city had 15 engines, 10 of them active, that
were the same age as or older than Engine 20 and three firehouses that
were designed by the same architect.
 
Board Chairman Tersh Boasberg responded that buildings designated as
historic did not have to be unique, just significant, and emphasized
that while the board was not trying to impede the department's mission,
the issue it was to decide was whether or not the station's history
warranted protected status.

"This is purely an analysis of the historical value of this property,"
he said. According to the board's mandate, published in the D.C.
Register in 1995, a building has to meet one of four criteria to be
deemed historic: It should be associated with people who have
contributed significantly to the heritage, culture and development of
the city; exemplify a significant historical and architectural heritage
of the city; embody a distinguishing architectural style to the
District; or be the notable work of an architect who has influenced the
development of the city.

Preservationists argued it met all four.  The station was built in 1900,
designed by architect Leon Dessez, who also designed seven other D.C.
firehouses and the vice president's mansion on the grounds of the U.S.
Naval Observatory.
 
It was part of a turn-of-the-century beautification movement among
municipal buildings, and while the bays were designed to accommodate
horses, in 1913 it became the second station in the city to be adapted
for motorized vehicles. Three firefighters in the station's history have
died in the line of the duty.

In the historic register, architects now will have to take their
renovation plans before the historical review board, which will take up
Engine Company 20's renovation plans Feb. 28.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

MORE ON THE TOWER

PLEASE SIGN UP FOR HEARING MONDAY / ANTENNA REGS
From: CooperJM@aol.com
Hi, friends- The following is a message from Ann Loikow about a City
Council hearing
that  is to be held this coming Monday, February 11, concerning Antenna
regs.  I
hope anyone who has the time to do so will sign up to speak.  This is
another
step in helping protect our city from American Tower Company-like
repeats.
Please contact Ann with any questions-- her email address is
johnl@erols.com,
and her phone number is listed at the end of the message.
Regards-
Jo Cooper
 

Please sign up for hearing Monday / Antenna regs
From:  Ann Loikow <johnl@erols.com>

Monday, Feb. 11, at 11:30-12 pm, the Council's Committee on Govt.
Operations will hold a
hearing on the Office of the Secretary of DC which oversees the Office
of Documents.  It is the Office of Documents which is in the process of
putting together a revised title 11 (Zoning) to the DC Municipal
Regulations.  I have a copy of the draft and the antenna regulations
have NOT been corrected to reflect the Zoning Commission's orders.

Jerrily Kress, Director of OZ, in her testimony Wed. before the
Council's Committee of the Whole which was holding the oversight hearing
on the Office of Zoning, said:  "...OZ unofficially continued updating
the DCMR Title 11 Zoning Regulations, which had not been
updated since MArch 1996 ... OZ is now pleased to annouce that the ZAC
(Zoning Advisory
Committee) and OZ staff have reviewed, proofed and edited, in its
entirety, the DCMR 11 Zoning Regulations.  All updated/changes to the
zoning regulations are included through today, except for the
codification errors in the antenna regulations from 1989 by
determination of the Office of Documents (OD)."

In you can, please call Donna Cooper of Committee Chairperson Vincent
Orange's office at
202-724-8035 and ask to testify and just mention this codification
problem and ask the Committee to help correct it.  The major issue is
that the regulations should say that all antenna towers, over certain
minimal heights, iin all zones should have been treated as special
exceptions requiring public notice and hearing before the Board of
Zoning Adjustment.  This should have been the case with the American
Tower tower in Tenley.

If you sign up to testify, please let me know.  If you have any
questions, please call me at 202-363-6658.
Ann Loikow
 

___________________________________

Below are excerpts from the petition the Cleveland Park Citizens
Association submitted to the Zoning Commission in July 2001 which
decribes the miscodification problem:

"The CPCA discussed the miscodification in its written and oral
submissions in Z.C. Case No. 00-29TA and at the Zoning Commission's
public roundtable on antennas, antenna towers and the structures on
which they are installed held on March 5, 2001. The Stop the Tower
Citizens Coalition made the same request and submitted an opinion of
counsel (attached), by Richard B. Nettler of Robins, Kaplan, Miller &
Ciresi L.l.P., on the miscodification.  The Federation of Citizens
Associations of the District of Columbia and the Ward Three Democratic
Committee have also requested correction of the miscodification of Order
587.  Copies of their resolutions are attached.

The Z.C. Order No. 587 was issued after an extensive five year
rulemaking process.  It is the substantive law on zoning for antennas
and antenna towers in the District of Columbia and must be the starting
point for any rulemaking by the Commission to revise the District of
Columbia's antenna and antenna tower regulations. That order sets out a
general regulatory framework:

 (1) to allow as an unqualified matter of right in all zone districts
those antennas which have the least potential adverse aesthetic impact
[i.e., home TV antennas]; (2) to allow as a qualified matter of right,
that is, with conditions for administrative review [review by OP and
Zoning Administrator], antennas which have somewhat greater potential
for such impact [i.e., certain ground mounted and roof mounted antennas
up to 12 or 20 feet, depending upon the zoning district]; and (3) to
allow any other antenna as a special exception. [p. 3 of Order 587]

The provisions of Order 587 dealing with commercial broadcast towers and
other antenna
towers that exceed the height limits set in the order for matter of
right antennas and antenna towers (definition of "antenna" in § 199 of
the Zoning Regulations includes the supporting tower) was miscodified in
the Title 11 of the DC Municipal Regulations (DCMR).  Under the 1989
order, these antennas and towers were governed by sections 211
(commercial broadcast towers) and 212 (other than commercial broadcast
towers).  Under these two sections, such antennas and towers could only
be erected in any zoning district if authorized by the Board of Zoning
Adjustment (BZA) through the special exception process.  The section on
special exceptions in 11 DCMR (originally § 3108 and now § 3104) was
erroneously not amended as required by paragraph 26 (pp. 19-20 of Order
587) to clearly show this and retained the pre-1989 language (which was
amended in November 2000 in a technical correction to apply to CR, SP
and W districts as well as R districts).  Also, § 701.6(g), which says
an "antenna tower for television and radio broadcasting" is a matter of
right in commercial districts, which was in the pre-1989 zoning
regulations, was erroneously left in.

CPCA separately provided the Director of the Office of Zoning (and the
Office of Documents) with a tabbed and annotated set of documents
excerpted from the complete record in Case 84-10 (records which are also
cited in Mr. Nettler's opinion).  The record clearly shows that the
Commission created the comprehensive, consistent framework for the
regulation of antennas and their supporting structures described in the
preamble to the order, as quoted above, which requires all antennas and
supporting structures exceeding the matter of right heights to be
approved the Board of Zoning Adjustment only as a special exception
pursuant to the provisions of section 211 or 212 of the Zoning
Regulations.  Comparison of the 1986 version of Title 11 of the DCMR
(found in the Zoning Commission's office) with Order 587 clearly shows
that the sections discussed above were not amended as required by Order
587."
 
--END--